

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hillary Clinton was booed at a National Education Association (NEA) event on Tuesday after suggesting that public schools have something to learn from their charter counterparts.
"When schools get it right, whether they're traditional public schools or public charter schools, let's figure out what's working and share it with schools across America," she said to the labor union's annual conference in Washington, D.C., provoking audible boos. "Rather than starting from ideology, let's start from what's best for our kids."
She went on to specifically denounce "for-profit charter schools," but as Politico noted, "[a]t some charter schools...the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit status is murky."
So too is Clinton's own stance on the corporate education system. Politico reports:
The Clintons are longtime charter school supporters, but charters are opposed by many teachers union members. Clinton was endorsed in October by the NEA -- at a critical time in the Democratic primary. But Clinton's support for charters has created some unease among rank-and-file union members, some of whom view charter schools as a threat to the survival of traditional schools. Soon after Clinton received the NEA endorsement last fall, Clinton surprised charter school backers when she criticized charter schools that "don't take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don't keep them."
Indeed, as former teacher and ProPublica reporting fellow Jessica Huseman wrote on Twitter:
The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers both endorsed Clinton early in the primary process, causing controversy among rank-and-file members.
"The push to endorse Clinton can't be based on what we know about the differences between [Bernie] Sanders and Clinton," retired art teacher and former president of the Park Ridge Education Association Fred Klonsky wrote at the time, noting that "Bernie's opposition to corporate education reforms is miles ahead of Hillary's. Instead, the decision seems to be based on a claim of inevitability."
Indeed, Klonsky wrote last September, "None of Clinton's statements so far suggest that she would break from the corporate reform polices that have dominated [Barack] Obama's Department of Education and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan."
Earlier this year, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER)--described by public education advocate Steven Singer as "a hedge fund front promoting the privatization of public education"--penned an op-ed in which he praised Clinton's position on charters.
Last week, citing damning reports on the failures of the "charter-industrial complex" as well as ongoing attempts to expand it, Esquire's Charles Pierce called for the Democratic Party to take a stronger stance on public education.
"Resolved: No matter how noble the original motives, public school 'reform' as pursued by private interests in general, and by plutocratic dilettantes in particular, has been an abject failure and an almost limitless vista of low-rent scams and high-tech brigandage," he wrote, drafting a potential platform plank for the Dems.
"Education is not a damn marketplace," he said. "We ought to learn this pretty soon."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Hillary Clinton was booed at a National Education Association (NEA) event on Tuesday after suggesting that public schools have something to learn from their charter counterparts.
"When schools get it right, whether they're traditional public schools or public charter schools, let's figure out what's working and share it with schools across America," she said to the labor union's annual conference in Washington, D.C., provoking audible boos. "Rather than starting from ideology, let's start from what's best for our kids."
She went on to specifically denounce "for-profit charter schools," but as Politico noted, "[a]t some charter schools...the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit status is murky."
So too is Clinton's own stance on the corporate education system. Politico reports:
The Clintons are longtime charter school supporters, but charters are opposed by many teachers union members. Clinton was endorsed in October by the NEA -- at a critical time in the Democratic primary. But Clinton's support for charters has created some unease among rank-and-file union members, some of whom view charter schools as a threat to the survival of traditional schools. Soon after Clinton received the NEA endorsement last fall, Clinton surprised charter school backers when she criticized charter schools that "don't take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don't keep them."
Indeed, as former teacher and ProPublica reporting fellow Jessica Huseman wrote on Twitter:
The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers both endorsed Clinton early in the primary process, causing controversy among rank-and-file members.
"The push to endorse Clinton can't be based on what we know about the differences between [Bernie] Sanders and Clinton," retired art teacher and former president of the Park Ridge Education Association Fred Klonsky wrote at the time, noting that "Bernie's opposition to corporate education reforms is miles ahead of Hillary's. Instead, the decision seems to be based on a claim of inevitability."
Indeed, Klonsky wrote last September, "None of Clinton's statements so far suggest that she would break from the corporate reform polices that have dominated [Barack] Obama's Department of Education and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan."
Earlier this year, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER)--described by public education advocate Steven Singer as "a hedge fund front promoting the privatization of public education"--penned an op-ed in which he praised Clinton's position on charters.
Last week, citing damning reports on the failures of the "charter-industrial complex" as well as ongoing attempts to expand it, Esquire's Charles Pierce called for the Democratic Party to take a stronger stance on public education.
"Resolved: No matter how noble the original motives, public school 'reform' as pursued by private interests in general, and by plutocratic dilettantes in particular, has been an abject failure and an almost limitless vista of low-rent scams and high-tech brigandage," he wrote, drafting a potential platform plank for the Dems.
"Education is not a damn marketplace," he said. "We ought to learn this pretty soon."
Hillary Clinton was booed at a National Education Association (NEA) event on Tuesday after suggesting that public schools have something to learn from their charter counterparts.
"When schools get it right, whether they're traditional public schools or public charter schools, let's figure out what's working and share it with schools across America," she said to the labor union's annual conference in Washington, D.C., provoking audible boos. "Rather than starting from ideology, let's start from what's best for our kids."
She went on to specifically denounce "for-profit charter schools," but as Politico noted, "[a]t some charter schools...the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit status is murky."
So too is Clinton's own stance on the corporate education system. Politico reports:
The Clintons are longtime charter school supporters, but charters are opposed by many teachers union members. Clinton was endorsed in October by the NEA -- at a critical time in the Democratic primary. But Clinton's support for charters has created some unease among rank-and-file union members, some of whom view charter schools as a threat to the survival of traditional schools. Soon after Clinton received the NEA endorsement last fall, Clinton surprised charter school backers when she criticized charter schools that "don't take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don't keep them."
Indeed, as former teacher and ProPublica reporting fellow Jessica Huseman wrote on Twitter:
The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers both endorsed Clinton early in the primary process, causing controversy among rank-and-file members.
"The push to endorse Clinton can't be based on what we know about the differences between [Bernie] Sanders and Clinton," retired art teacher and former president of the Park Ridge Education Association Fred Klonsky wrote at the time, noting that "Bernie's opposition to corporate education reforms is miles ahead of Hillary's. Instead, the decision seems to be based on a claim of inevitability."
Indeed, Klonsky wrote last September, "None of Clinton's statements so far suggest that she would break from the corporate reform polices that have dominated [Barack] Obama's Department of Education and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan."
Earlier this year, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER)--described by public education advocate Steven Singer as "a hedge fund front promoting the privatization of public education"--penned an op-ed in which he praised Clinton's position on charters.
Last week, citing damning reports on the failures of the "charter-industrial complex" as well as ongoing attempts to expand it, Esquire's Charles Pierce called for the Democratic Party to take a stronger stance on public education.
"Resolved: No matter how noble the original motives, public school 'reform' as pursued by private interests in general, and by plutocratic dilettantes in particular, has been an abject failure and an almost limitless vista of low-rent scams and high-tech brigandage," he wrote, drafting a potential platform plank for the Dems.
"Education is not a damn marketplace," he said. "We ought to learn this pretty soon."